Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Teacher Evaluation Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lodi Unified board hears strong opposition to proposed teacher-evaluation changes tied to assessments
Summary
Members of the public, teachers and union representatives urged the Lodi Unified School District Board to remove or renegotiate redlined language in Policy/Rule 4.115 that they say could tie student assessments to teacher evaluations; staff said the language reflects Ed. Code 44662 and not an intent to replace negotiated evaluation processes.
Public testimony at the Lodi Unified School District board meeting on March 20 focused heavily on proposed revisions to Board Policy/Rule 4.115 (Evaluation and Supervision of Certificated Staff), with teachers, union leaders and parents urging the board not to adopt language that they fear would use student assessments to judge teacher performance.
Dr. Christopher Anderson, an educator and president of the Stockton Teachers Association (speaking as an individual), told the board the proposal was “wholly misguided” and warned that value‑added models and heavy reliance on test scores can be unstable and encourage teaching to the test. "Relying heavily on these calculations to evaluate, reward, and remove teachers is problematic," Anderson said, citing research and RAND and Gates Foundation initiatives as context for his concern.
Why it matters: Speakers said assigning evaluative weight to student assessment outcomes risks unfairly penalizing teachers whose students face socioeconomic disadvantages, special needs or irregular attendance. Several speakers urged the board to take the matter to bargaining with the district’s union, the Lodi Education Association, rather than advancing the redlined language now.
District staff responded that the redlined language reflects the components enumerated in California Education Code section 44662 and the California Standards for the Teaching Profession and that there is no intention to replace the negotiated observation and summary‑evaluation processes. Staff noted the timing of state assessment results (SBAC) means those scores are not available until after teachers are on summer break, and that the district follows the LEA collective‑bargaining agreement for evaluation procedures.
Multiple board members said the redlined sections read as vague or subjective and urged additional clarification, training and alignment with negotiated instruments before any policy change. One board member asked staff to provide the existing observation form and the language from the LEA agreement to the board and to solicit public questions by email so staff can respond in writing.
What happened next: The board did not adopt policy changes on the night of March 20. Board members signaled willingness to form a committee or to bring the item back after staff supplies the requested clarifications and the district and LEA have had opportunities to bargain or advise. President Ball asked public commenters to BCC the board on follow‑up questions and for staff to attach the observation form used in the negotiated process.
Quotes: "This revision is not good for our students, for teachers, or our community," said Dr. Christopher Anderson, opposing the change. "It seems deceptive to bring this policy through the back door without bargaining," said a speaker who objected to the timing of the item.
Next steps: Staff will provide the board with the referenced observation form and language from the collective‑bargaining agreement and respond in writing to public questions. Board members requested time for committee review and further alignment before any formal adoption.
Ending: The policy discussion dominated much of the evening’s public testimony and board deliberations; no vote was taken on the proposed 4.115 revisions at the meeting.
